Nokia is planning to release a lighter, thinner phone with aluminum casing in its Lumia line during 2013, according to a report from The Verge. The aluminum would replace the company’s signature polycarbonate body for its flagship Windows Phone handsets in pursuit of competing with companies putting out sleeker phones.

Nokia has now released two flagship phones, the Lumia 900 and Lumia 920. Both have shells cut from blocks of polycarbonate with a texture luxurious enough to make even the most discerning of consumers covetous. Nokia partially departed from the material with a handful of Lumia 920s rendered in slick red and yellow plastic. But the Lumia flagship feels increasingly bloated in size compared to its competitors, especially its contemporary, the HTC 8X.

The aluminum Lumia number is codenamed Catwalk, according to The Verge, and would maintain similar hardware specs to the Lumia 920 but with a slimmed-down profile. While the polycarbonate bodies have always met our approval, we wouldn’t be sad to see the shiny plastic models booted out the door in favor of aluminum ones. If they all must go in favor of a sleeker phone, so be it.

The Verge provides no time frame for the device’s launch other than “later this year.” It’s not impossible Nokia will demo the device at CES next week, but we’d hold out for a launch during smartphone season in the fall.

Casey Johnston
Casey Johnston is the former Culture Editor at Ars Technica, and now does the occasional freelance story. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Applied Physics. Twitter@caseyjohnston

"Nokia is planning to release a lighter, thinner phone with aluminum casing in its Lumia line during 2013, according to a report from The Verge. The aluminum would replace the company’s signature polycarbonate body for its flagship Windows Phone handsets in pursuit of competing with companies putting out sleeker phones."

LOL, what's with using "polycarbonate?" I've noticed this recent trend amongst some "tech" sites in using "polycarbonate" ever since Nokia came out with their phones using that term to somehow make their phones seem more special than simply saying plastic.

Calling one of the most commonly used plastics by its technical name doesn't make it any more special. It's not like we commonly refer to plastic bottles as low desnity polyethylene or polypropylene. If it were an unusually different plastic such as Kevlar or carbon fiber then I could understand mentioning that. Otherwise saying their phones are made out of "polycarbonate" is just silly and pretentious.

Alternately, one could say its accurate. Plastic is a catch-all term for a lot of materials, and I'd take Nokia's phones over Samsung's any days. A good part of that is due to how much higher quality the 'plastic' is in the Nokia than the Samsung.

Stiffness, depends if its by weight or thickness. Aluminium wins if by thickness but if by weight polycarbonate may be better.

Wireless charging, polycarbonate has better efficiency but aluminium should work as it is done by magnetism. There will be some lost power to the aluminium but it shouldn't be a game stopper. Some 920 owner could check this easily by placing a thin sheet of aluminium like a pie cup between 920 and charger. Shouldn't make much difference as placing it on induction stove shouldn't heat it, and that indicator how it reacts to magnetism.

The highness of material class is in the eye of beholder and changes with time. There is nothing novel in Nokia making a aluminium or stainless steel casing now. They have used it a long time ago in mid class phones so it isn't aping others, it is just choosing one material out of multitudes.

"Nokia is planning to release a lighter, thinner phone with aluminum casing in its Lumia line during 2013, according to a report from The Verge. The aluminum would replace the company’s signature polycarbonate body for its flagship Windows Phone handsets in pursuit of competing with companies putting out sleeker phones."

LOL, what's with using "polycarbonate?" I've noticed this recent trend amongst some "tech" sites in using "polycarbonate" ever since Nokia came out with their phones using that term to somehow make their phones seem more special than simply saying plastic.

Calling one of the most commonly used plastics by its technical name doesn't make it any more special. It's not like we commonly refer to plastic bottles as low desnity polyethylene or polypropylene. If it were an unusually different plastic such as Kevlar or carbon fiber then I could understand mentioning that. Otherwise saying their phones are made out of "polycarbonate" is just silly and pretentious.

Kevlar and carbon(fiber) aren't plastics, so you lose your cred on bitching about using the material name polycarbonate.

Next time you might as well bitch about telling it's going to be aluminium instead of metal. I took a freedom of doing it for you, using your words:"LOL, what's with using "aluminum?" I've noticed this recent trend amongst some "tech" sites in using "aluminum" ever since Nokia came out with their phones using that term to somehow make their phones seem more special than simply saying metal."

Kevlar and carbon(fiber) aren't plastics, so you lose your cred on bitching about using the material name polycarbonate.

Carbon fibre on its own is not a plastic, it's strands of carbon thread that have woven to make a cloth.But that's not much use to make a phone (or race car) from.For that you need to add resin, and cure it.

So really, when we say 'carbon fibre' we mean 'plastic that has been reinforced with carbon fibre'

Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP or CRP or often simply carbon fiber), is an extremely strong and light fiber-reinforced polymer which contains carbon fibers.

So it is a plastic, albeit one that has been reinforced by other materials.

The same principle applies to Kevlar, and even fibre-glass. They are just reinforcing materials for a plastic, to make the plastic stronger than it would be without them.

(In the same way that steel-reinforced-concrete is still concrete. But not much use for making phones)

Me? I would happily have a high-quality phone made from high-quality plastic. Ultimately I doubt it would be thicker than an iPhone 4 + case (which I had) or an iPhone 5 + case (which I have now.I tried a friend's Nokia Lumia Windows phone and found it to be very high quality, and the plastic body was not an issue for me at all.

I was under the impression all modern phones were made with a variety of materials. Copper, Silicon, Tantalum, Lithium and a lot of the other words from the Tom Lehrer song.

Unless your 'phone' consists of a plastic drinks cup attached to string (also of the plastic type) attached to another plastic drinks cup at the other end, your phone is most definitely made of composite materials.

And yes even the thumb/pinky imaginary hand phone gesture is a composite material, albeit organic; like bananaphones.

I think wireless charging is something you kind of have to experience to appreciate. It seemed that everyone was telling me that it wasn't that big a deal (on my Palm Pre), but I absolutely loved it and miss it quite a bit.

Agreed. I honestly thought it was a pretty silly feature, and never would have purchased my own wireless charging dock. But AT&T sent me one after I purchased the phone, and I said "why not" and plugged it in. I love it. It's not that I need it or that it makes my life noticeably easier, but there is something satisfying about dropping it on a pad and hearing the subtle charging chime.

Does it feel satisfying knowing how much energy you're wasting while you charge something wirelessly?

What is this crazy fascination with thin stuff (phones, tvs and so on)? Is there some research about thinness of your device being inversely proportional to your dick size or what?

At what point does the whole thinness chasing become retarded beyond belief? Phones already have bad battery time is that extra 1 mm really worth having to charge the damn thing every day? The hell do people do with them that it matters so much? It's not even nice to hold when the phone is ultra thin.

Kevlar and carbon(fiber) aren't plastics, so you lose your cred on bitching about using the material name polycarbonate.

Carbon fibre on its own is not a plastic, it's strands of carbon thread that have woven to make a cloth.But that's not much use to make a phone (or race car) from.For that you need to add resin, and cure it.

So really, when we say 'carbon fibre' we mean 'plastic that has been reinforced with carbon fibre'

Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP or CRP or often simply carbon fiber), is an extremely strong and light fiber-reinforced polymer which contains carbon fibers.

So it is a plastic, albeit one that has been reinforced by other materials.

The same principle applies to Kevlar, and even fibre-glass. They are just reinforcing materials for a plastic, to make the plastic stronger than it would be without them.

(In the same way that steel-reinforced-concrete is still concrete. But not much use for making phones)

Me? I would happily have a high-quality phone made from high-quality plastic. Ultimately I doubt it would be thicker than an iPhone 4 + case (which I had) or an iPhone 5 + case (which I have now.I tried a friend's Nokia Lumia Windows phone and found it to be very high quality, and the plastic body was not an issue for me at all.

Since we're being pedantic, your own link says iit's plastic which has carbon fibers in it. The carbon fiber itself is not plastic. So Redo from Start is technically correct. The best kind of correct.

I think wireless charging is something you kind of have to experience to appreciate. It seemed that everyone was telling me that it wasn't that big a deal (on my Palm Pre), but I absolutely loved it and miss it quite a bit.

Agreed. I honestly thought it was a pretty silly feature, and never would have purchased my own wireless charging dock. But AT&T sent me one after I purchased the phone, and I said "why not" and plugged it in. I love it. It's not that I need it or that it makes my life noticeably easier, but there is something satisfying about dropping it on a pad and hearing the subtle charging chime.

Does it feel satisfying knowing how much energy you're wasting while you charge something wirelessly?

I think wireless charging is something you kind of have to experience to appreciate. It seemed that everyone was telling me that it wasn't that big a deal (on my Palm Pre), but I absolutely loved it and miss it quite a bit.

Agreed. I honestly thought it was a pretty silly feature, and never would have purchased my own wireless charging dock. But AT&T sent me one after I purchased the phone, and I said "why not" and plugged it in. I love it. It's not that I need it or that it makes my life noticeably easier, but there is something satisfying about dropping it on a pad and hearing the subtle charging chime.

Does it feel satisfying knowing how much energy you're wasting while you charge something wirelessly?

Kevlar and carbon(fiber) aren't plastics, so you lose your cred on bitching about using the material name polycarbonate.

Carbon fibre on its own is not a plastic, it's strands of carbon thread that have woven to make a cloth.But that's not much use to make a phone (or race car) from.For that you need to add resin, and cure it.

So really, when we say 'carbon fibre' we mean 'plastic that has been reinforced with carbon fibre'

Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP or CRP or often simply carbon fiber), is an extremely strong and light fiber-reinforced polymer which contains carbon fibers.

So it is a plastic, albeit one that has been reinforced by other materials.

The same principle applies to Kevlar, and even fibre-glass. They are just reinforcing materials for a plastic, to make the plastic stronger than it would be without them.

(In the same way that steel-reinforced-concrete is still concrete. But not much use for making phones)

Me? I would happily have a high-quality phone made from high-quality plastic. Ultimately I doubt it would be thicker than an iPhone 4 + case (which I had) or an iPhone 5 + case (which I have now.I tried a friend's Nokia Lumia Windows phone and found it to be very high quality, and the plastic body was not an issue for me at all.

Since we're being pedantic, your own link says iit's plastic which has carbon fibers in it. The carbon fiber itself is not plastic. So Redo from Start is technically correct. The best kind of correct.

My favorite kind of correctness, in this case.

Also to be really pedantic it isn't given that there's any plastic if material contains carbon fiber. There is a class of materials called metal matrix composite where instead of plastic the carbon fiber is permeated with metal, aluminium or magnesium usually. No plastic, just carbon fiber in metal.

The HTC 8X is only a fraction of a millimetre thinner than the 920, and is also made of polycarbonate.

But perception is everything. It came as quite a surprise to me when I had 4 different people at different times mention "It's so thin" when first seeing my 8X. The 8X has a thin edge but thick center. The effect is no different than what Apple did with the updated all-in-one macs.

I upgraded from the iPhone 3Gs to the 920, and the size isn't an issue. I'd rather have a phone that can survive fumbles than the one you need to encase in plastic or rubber. And picking up the iPhone after a week of the Nokia it felt like a toy. I can type one-handed just fine, so I might have larger hands than most of the reviewers..

I need a good GPS app for work, and have had no issues with Drive other than losing the points/crowdsourced road status info of Waze.

Wireless charging is a great thing you hate not having after using it. Set down to charge, then grab and go. If you get a call no fumbling to unplug.

The only reason to bitch about the 920's size and weight is because you have small hands. Casey, I get you don't like the phone, but your issues with it don't make in uncompetitive. Give it up, we know you don't like it, but that doesn't make it not a great phone despite the fact you can't differentiate your feelings about it versus what it is to other people.

This is what's been bothering me about Ars lately. I can't help but feel that Ars staff has unexpressed hatred of sort towards the whole Windows Phone platform and especially towards the Lumia 920. Almost every Android based phone no matter how ugly/insignificant are covered in detail but I never saw an actual review of Lumia 920 which is one of the flagship Windows Phone 8 devices. Did I miss the review or is my suspicion right?

Also don't get me started on Apple devices. The Apple device rumours get a lot more coverage in this site than actual Windows Phone devices.

I think wireless charging is something you kind of have to experience to appreciate. It seemed that everyone was telling me that it wasn't that big a deal (on my Palm Pre), but I absolutely loved it and miss it quite a bit.

Agreed. I honestly thought it was a pretty silly feature, and never would have purchased my own wireless charging dock. But AT&T sent me one after I purchased the phone, and I said "why not" and plugged it in. I love it. It's not that I need it or that it makes my life noticeably easier, but there is something satisfying about dropping it on a pad and hearing the subtle charging chime.

Does it feel satisfying knowing how much energy you're wasting while you charge something wirelessly?

Evidence? Link showing that it's a highly wasteful process?

I've always understood induction to be highly energy efficient. I know induction stoves are way more efficient than electric coil or even gas stoves.

The only reason to bitch about the 920's size and weight is because you have small hands. Casey, I get you don't like the phone, but your issues with it don't make in uncompetitive. Give it up, we know you don't like it, but that doesn't make it not a great phone despite the fact you can't differentiate your feelings about it versus what it is to other people.

This is what's been bothering me about Ars lately. I can't help but feel that Ars staff has unexpressed hatred of sort towards the whole Windows Phone platform and especially towards the Lumia 920. Almost every Android based phone no matter how ugly/insignificant are covered in detail but I never saw an actual review of Lumia 920 which is one of the flagship Windows Phone 8 devices. Did I miss the review or is my suspicion right?

Also don't get me started on Apple devices. The Apple device rumours get a lot more coverage in this site than actual Windows Phone devices.

Ars writers have chosen to generally dislike Windows Phone and the Kindle Fire line. They also tend to give irrational love to losing propositions, currently the Nook line and in the past it was Tivo and CableCard. Meh, its fine, they are welcome to their opinion. But I just don't expect a neutral POV when they review certain things, and I guess thats ok.

I think wireless charging is something you kind of have to experience to appreciate. It seemed that everyone was telling me that it wasn't that big a deal (on my Palm Pre), but I absolutely loved it and miss it quite a bit.

Agreed. I honestly thought it was a pretty silly feature, and never would have purchased my own wireless charging dock. But AT&T sent me one after I purchased the phone, and I said "why not" and plugged it in. I love it. It's not that I need it or that it makes my life noticeably easier, but there is something satisfying about dropping it on a pad and hearing the subtle charging chime.

Does it feel satisfying knowing how much energy you're wasting while you charge something wirelessly?

Evidence? Link showing that it's a highly wasteful process?

I've always understood induction to be highly energy efficient. I know induction stoves are way more efficient than electric coil or even gas stoves.

Induction less less wasteful than coil or gas only because you are selectively radiating (the coil and gas, for example, radiate in free space while the inductor only radiates into the cooking pot/pan).

Induction is more wasteful than a wire because the wire barely radiates anything while the inductor has transmission losses due to passing through a couple millimeters of space. Imagine as an example that efficiency increases as the distance shrinks until it's essentially in contact and is no longer an inductor but a straight wire charger.

I think wireless charging is something you kind of have to experience to appreciate. It seemed that everyone was telling me that it wasn't that big a deal (on my Palm Pre), but I absolutely loved it and miss it quite a bit.

Agreed. I honestly thought it was a pretty silly feature, and never would have purchased my own wireless charging dock. But AT&T sent me one after I purchased the phone, and I said "why not" and plugged it in. I love it. It's not that I need it or that it makes my life noticeably easier, but there is something satisfying about dropping it on a pad and hearing the subtle charging chime.

Does it feel satisfying knowing how much energy you're wasting while you charge something wirelessly?

Evidence? Link showing that it's a highly wasteful process?

I've always understood induction to be highly energy efficient. I know induction stoves are way more efficient than electric coil or even gas stoves.

Induction less less wasteful than coil or gas only because you are selectively radiating (the coil and gas, for example, radiate in free space while the inductor only radiates into the cooking pot/pan).

Induction is more wasteful than a wire because the wire barely radiates anything while the inductor has transmission losses due to passing through a couple millimeters of space. Imagine as an example that efficiency increases as the distance shrinks until it's essentially in contact and is no longer an inductor but a straight wire charger.

At the power levels in question, however, I'm betting its pretty insignificant.

At the power levels in question, however, I'm betting its pretty insignificant.

This is what I was wondering. I would agree that it's likely less efficient than a wire, but is it an amount that matters?

Depends on the scale. To a individual user if it was as low as 50% the wasted energy from empty battery to a full one would be around 5Wh, or 0.005kWh, it would be insignifant.

But if it was 100 million phones sold and each one is charged 200 times a year it would become 100 million kWh, or 100TWh. That would be about one 10GW powerstation yearly production. To hardline greenies that might not be insignificant even tho more power is probably used for garage door openers.

I don't think anyone is saying that. They are saying that a lot of people like aluminum phones and Nokia has nothing in that segment. Adding one is smart. A lot of people like them, and like thinner and smaller phones. Since Nokia has several phones out at a time, why would they ignore a market segment that is significant? Personally I'd love a 920 that was slimmer, lighter and fixed some of the areas where I feel its quality falls below the 8X(especially audio quality and the FFC).

To me saying that not being made of aluminum, despite no evidence that supports it being a "better" material, is holding Nokia back is saying it isn't selling because of that. The current golden child of Ars and other publications fancies, the iPhone, was plastic for two generations, and then glass for two more. Only this latest generation has been made entirely from aluminum. What Casey is saying is that she still doesn't like the fact that the Lumia 920 is too big for her hands, but she wraps it up in an article full of logical fallacy about how an aluminum version would all of a sudden make the phone better and more competitive. Because she doesn't like the formfactor. It doesn't feel cheap, it's well made, well engineered, and has a great feature set. All that means nothing to her because she believes aluminum=better with no data to support it.

reflex-croft wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of Casey's reviews, but dozens of other reviewers, including the esteemed Paul Thurrot, also felt the 8X was the superior WP8 device. They all had their reasons.

I'm the opposite, I really like Casey's reviews, and her articles. I think she's intelligent, well-written (something I'm definitely not comparatively), and thorough. But she whiffed badly on this one. Her sole reason for the 8X being better was because it was lighter, and less bulky. Being twice the price, less feature-packed, and being almost on par with the Lumia in just about every other metric was the basic conclusion at the end of the "review" and yet it came out "best" because it fit her hand better. That doesn't make it best, that makes it preferable if you don't want a large phone. Everywhere else, on paper, the 920 was superior.

reflex-croft wrote:

All such qualifications are inherently subjective. To some, the 820 may be the 'best' I suppose, after all it has expandable storage.

They usually have good reasons to back up that assertion, her review did not.

reflex-croft wrote:

Yes, I think the 920 is a fantastic phone. If the 8X did not exist I'd want it. That said carrier cannot be disregarded and it will be a cold day in hell before I give up a fantastic network(Verizon) for any phone. I'd sooner keep my Trophy than go to AT&T. In my opinion Nokia has shot themselves in the foot with carrier exclusivity, and HTC is reaping the rewards of that decision.

I think that's the true thing that makes the 920 "uncompetitive." Being carrier exclusive is incredibly stupid, that's one area where Nokia should have learned from Apple. They were the juggernaut, forged a path no carrier would allow in the future, and then went to the other big carriers. Nokia should have had every model available on every carrier when they announced the phone, not a few months later with one carrier and crap supply lines. The phone and design is fine, their strategy made it uncompetitive.

reflex-croft wrote:

No, its the article writer's opinion.

Just because it's an opinion doesn't make it not a logical fallacy. It is a logical fallacy, plain and simple. The error in reasoning leads to an illogical conclusion.

To me saying that not being made of aluminum, despite no evidence that supports it being a "better" material, is holding Nokia back is saying it isn't selling because of that. The current golden child of Ars and other publications fancies, the iPhone, was plastic for two generations, and then glass for two more. Only this latest generation has been made entirely from aluminum. What Casey is saying is that she still doesn't like the fact that the Lumia 920 is too big for her hands, but she wraps it up in an article full of logical fallacy about how an aluminum version would all of a sudden make the phone better and more competitive. Because she doesn't like the formfactor. It doesn't feel cheap, it's well made, well engineered, and has a great feature set. All that means nothing to her because she believes aluminum=better with no data to support it.

I'm not really certain how you arrive at this point. She is not saying aluminum is superior, but that it tends to make for thinner and lighter phones. Which, based on the phones I've ever seen, seems to be a true statement. So what is the problem with this? A basic property of aluminum is that it is thin and light yet strong, which is why it is used for lots and lots of things. Is there a reason that this is some sort of debate in your mind? I really don't get it.

Quote:

I'm the opposite, I really like Casey's reviews, and her articles. I think she's intelligent, well-written (something I'm definitely not comparatively), and thorough. But she whiffed badly on this one. Her sole reason for the 8X being better was because it was lighter, and less bulky. Being twice the price, less feature-packed, and being almost on par with the Lumia in just about every other metric was the basic conclusion at the end of the "review" and yet it came out "best" because it fit her hand better. That doesn't make it best, that makes it preferable if you don't want a large phone. Everywhere else, on paper, the 920 was superior.

1) Thin and light *is* a valid reason to decide a phone is 'better' if it is the criteria that manage most to you! My Aunt simply will not consider a phone that does not fit into a certain pouch on her main purse. She had a look at the 8X and 920 and declared the 920 was terrible simply because it does not fit in that pouch. Her opinion is *valid* even though I think its harsher than it need be. At the end of the day if the phone does not meet a person's requirements, stating that its not the best is a fair statement. Just keep in mind its not the best from their perspective.

2) People keep asserting the 8X is less feature packed. This is false. It has a *different* featureset. I've repeatedly pointed out the features the 920 has that the 8X does not, and the features that the 8X has that the 920 does not. I feel they have an equal number of strengths and weaknesses, and I think that point of view is pretty strongly backed up by the evidence. What you find important really determines what your perception of the featuresets are. On paper, its a very tough call between them, neither has a clear edge overall.

3) Price is dependent upon carrier. Many ran deals, and right now the 920 and 8X are the same price pretty much everywhere. At launch, AT&T had the 8X at twice the price, but some carriers did not, and even in the first two weeks the 8X was available for $99 with a charger from several carriers via special offers and deals. Regardless, if someone finds the carrier more important than the phone, or the features of the 8X more compelling than the 920, a price difference of a hundred bucks on a two year contract likely dosen't sound that important.

Quote:

I think that's the true thing that makes the 920 "uncompetitive." Being carrier exclusive is incredibly stupid, that's one area where Nokia should have learned from Apple. They were the juggernaut, forged a path no carrier would allow in the future, and then went to the other big carriers. Nokia should have had every model available on every carrier when they announced the phone, not a few months later with one carrier and crap supply lines. The phone and design is fine, their strategy made it uncompetitive.

It really is a wasted opportunity. I'm enjoying the fact that we can even have this debate over a Windows Phone device. Too bad everyone couldn't choose for themselves.

Quote:

Just because it's an opinion doesn't make it not a logical fallacy. It is a logical fallacy, plain and simple. The error in reasoning leads to an illogical conclusion.

I don't agree with your reasoning here. Its up to each reviewer to choose how to weight their preferences. You need to find a reviewer who values the same things you do in a phone.

"Nokia is planning to release a lighter, thinner phone with aluminum casing in its Lumia line during 2013, according to a report from The Verge. The aluminum would replace the company’s signature polycarbonate body for its flagship Windows Phone handsets in pursuit of competing with companies putting out sleeker phones."

LOL, what's with using "polycarbonate?" I've noticed this recent trend amongst some "tech" sites in using "polycarbonate" ever since Nokia came out with their phones using that term to somehow make their phones seem more special than simply saying plastic.

Calling one of the most commonly used plastics by its technical name doesn't make it any more special. It's not like we commonly refer to plastic bottles as low desnity polyethylene or polypropylene. If it were an unusually different plastic such as Kevlar or carbon fiber then I could understand mentioning that. Otherwise saying their phones are made out of "polycarbonate" is just silly and pretentious.

Kevlar and carbon(fiber) aren't plastics, so you lose your cred on bitching about using the material name polycarbonate.

Next time you might as well bitch about telling it's going to be aluminium instead of metal. I took a freedom of doing it for you, using your words:"LOL, what's with using "aluminum?" I've noticed this recent trend amongst some "tech" sites in using "aluminum" ever since Nokia came out with their phones using that term to somehow make their phones seem more special than simply saying metal."

You're welcome, no need to thank.

Kevlar and carbon fiber are most certainly and properly classified as plastics. Instead of trying to be smug and witty, not to mention rude, I would suggest you do a little bit of reading on the subject.

Polycarbonate is a very commonly used plastic so to compare it to the less commonly used aluminum, in such applications, makes no sense, hence my comment. Apples and oranges.

Do you also refer to your plastic bottles as high or low density polyethylene?

I was under the impression all modern phones were made with a variety of materials. Copper, Silicon, Tantalum, Lithium and a lot of the other words from the Tom Lehrer song.

Unless your 'phone' consists of a plastic drinks cup attached to string (also of the plastic type) attached to another plastic drinks cup at the other end, your phone is most definitely made of composite materials.

And yes even the thumb/pinky imaginary hand phone gesture is a composite material, albeit organic; like bananaphones.

I take it then that you refer to all the plastics you use in your everyday life by their technical names? Unless you are in that industry I'd say anyone claiming such a thing is full of it as they would have to know quite a bit about the very many types of plastics in use and their complicated names.

"I was under the impression all modern phones were made with a variety of materials."

Obviously you missed the point of my post. What did you think I was suggesting, that phones are made of just plastic?

Kevlar and carbon(fiber) aren't plastics, so you lose your cred on bitching about using the material name polycarbonate.

Carbon fibre on its own is not a plastic, it's strands of carbon thread that have woven to make a cloth.But that's not much use to make a phone (or race car) from.For that you need to add resin, and cure it.

So really, when we say 'carbon fibre' we mean 'plastic that has been reinforced with carbon fibre'

Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer or carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP or CRP or often simply carbon fiber), is an extremely strong and light fiber-reinforced polymer which contains carbon fibers.

So it is a plastic, albeit one that has been reinforced by other materials.

The same principle applies to Kevlar, and even fibre-glass. They are just reinforcing materials for a plastic, to make the plastic stronger than it would be without them.

(In the same way that steel-reinforced-concrete is still concrete. But not much use for making phones)

Me? I would happily have a high-quality phone made from high-quality plastic. Ultimately I doubt it would be thicker than an iPhone 4 + case (which I had) or an iPhone 5 + case (which I have now.I tried a friend's Nokia Lumia Windows phone and found it to be very high quality, and the plastic body was not an issue for me at all.

Since we're being pedantic, your own link says iit's plastic which has carbon fibers in it. The carbon fiber itself is not plastic. So Redo from Start is technically correct. The best kind of correct.

My favorite kind of correctness, in this case.

Also to be really pedantic it isn't given that there's any plastic if material contains carbon fiber. There is a class of materials called metal matrix composite where instead of plastic the carbon fiber is permeated with metal, aluminium or magnesium usually. No plastic, just carbon fiber in metal.

"Nokia is planning to release a lighter, thinner phone with aluminum casing in its Lumia line during 2013, according to a report from The Verge. The aluminum would replace the company’s signature polycarbonate body for its flagship Windows Phone handsets in pursuit of competing with companies putting out sleeker phones."

LOL, what's with using "polycarbonate?" I've noticed this recent trend amongst some "tech" sites in using "polycarbonate" ever since Nokia came out with their phones using that term to somehow make their phones seem more special than simply saying plastic.

Calling one of the most commonly used plastics by its technical name doesn't make it any more special. It's not like we commonly refer to plastic bottles as low desnity polyethylene or polypropylene. If it were an unusually different plastic such as Kevlar or carbon fiber then I could understand mentioning that. Otherwise saying their phones are made out of "polycarbonate" is just silly and pretentious.

Kevlar and carbon(fiber) aren't plastics, so you lose your cred on bitching about using the material name polycarbonate.

Next time you might as well bitch about telling it's going to be aluminium instead of metal. I took a freedom of doing it for you, using your words:"LOL, what's with using "aluminum?" I've noticed this recent trend amongst some "tech" sites in using "aluminum" ever since Nokia came out with their phones using that term to somehow make their phones seem more special than simply saying metal."

You're welcome, no need to thank.

Kevlar and carbon fiber are most certainly and properly classified as plastics. Instead of trying to be smug and witty, not to mention rude, I would suggest you do a little bit of reading on the subject.

Polycarbonate is a very commonly used plastic so to compare it to the less commonly used aluminum, in such applications, makes no sense, hence my comment. Apples and oranges.

Do you also refer to your plastic bottles as high or low density polyethylene?

Kevlar and carbon fiber aren't classified as plastics, but ceramics. And when combined with plastic it becomes fiber-reinforced plastic.

As for claiming the aluminium would be apples and oranges, it isn't. You might as well bitch that they don't call it metal casing.

Also to be really pedantic it isn't given that there's any plastic if material contains carbon fiber. There is a class of materials called metal matrix composite where instead of plastic the carbon fiber is permeated with metal, aluminium or magnesium usually. No plastic, just carbon fiber in metal.

Obviously such an application is not what is being referred to. I'm sure you and the other person knew what I was referring to.

By far the most commonly used application is as a plastic material. That is what people think about when one refers to carbon fiber products so let's not be silly and miss the obvious point.

Not by far if you dont fish, camp or sport. Then the most common place where consumers bump into carbon fiber is when buying car, where they may get to choose if they want carbon fiber break disks or not. And in break disks the carbon fiber is classified as ceramic, not plastic or even fiber-reinforced plastic.

Since aluminum was cutting edge in 2007, I am not surprised that it took Nokia 5+ years to catch on - based on their poor market showing during this period...

You are aware that Nokia was making a lot of phones during this period that had stainless steel bodies, like the E71, which was a sleek work of art compared to the Blackberries it was positioned against. Outside of the fugly N97, Nokia has generally made some great looking phone hardware. The biggest problem they had was being chained to an ancient smartphone OS that was not able to compete with Android, and their MeeGo successor was too little, too late. They just realized way too late that when it comes to software and service ecosystems, a single vendor has no hope of going against Google, Apple, or Microsoft and succeeding. They just don't have the resources needed to keep up, which is why Blackberry is probably pretty doomed as well.

The only sticking point I have with your comment is other than apps, there was nothing wrong with Symbian.

i got a 920 as a replacement for my iphone 4. and loved it the first week.. then started having problems. battery or something overheating, dust under the front lens. internet sharing was not working. also my phone was crashing. worst problem was the apple sync application stopped working. and drag and drop support only works on windows. so i took it back. and got an iphone 5.. they only had the 64 meg version, but i love this thing... i'm still worried about the thinness of this phone like it will bend, but i have it in an otterbox.